Loading ITAT cases…
78 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and the materials on record, including the application filed before the RPT authorities, decided to set aside the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) in the interest of justice. The Tribunal directed that the assessee trust be given one more opportunity of hearing. The CIT(E) is to pass orders in accordance with the provisions of law after considering all the necessary details. The ratio decidendi is that in the interest of justice, an assessee should be given an opportunity to rectify procedural deficiencies, especially when the application for a prerequisite registration (like under the RPT Act) has been filed. The operative direction is to set aside the orders and remand the matter for fresh consideration with an opportunity for a hearing. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) were ex parte and were passed without granting the assessee a proper and meaningful opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the issue of grant of registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act was restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for reconsideration afresh, with a direction to provide due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Similarly, the issue of denial of approval under Section 80G of the Act, which was consequential to the denial of Section 12AB registration, was also restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) to be considered afresh along with the Section 12AB application. The Tribunal observed that the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT had rightly invoked powers under Section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal disagreed with the assessee's contention that the AO had made adequate inquiries and formed a plausible opinion. The Tribunal noted that the AO was in possession of adverse information regarding ICPL, including investigation reports and statements from its directors admitting to providing accommodation entries. Despite this, the AO failed to conduct any inquiries or confront the assessee with this adverse material. The AO merely accepted the documents filed by the assessee, which established identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness, without verifying them against the adverse information. The Tribunal found this to be a case of improper/inadequate inquiry, amounting to an abdication of duty by the AO. Explanation 2 to Section 263 explicitly deems an order erroneous if passed without making necessary inquiries or verification. The Tribunal distinguished the cited cases of *Shreeji Prints Pvt. Ltd.* and *Shri Nirav Modi* as being factually different, where the AO had made inquiries and was satisfied with the evidence. Therefore, the PCIT rightly held the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(E) erred in refusing registration solely on the ground of non-registration under the RPT Act, especially when the competent authority under the RPT Act had determined that the temple is not required to be registered. The Tribunal noted that section 12AB(1)(b)(i)(B) requires compliance with applicable laws material to the objects, and if the administering authority states no such requirement exists, there can be no non-compliance. The order dated 17.04.1984 of the Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur, which found the temple to be a private temple not falling under the RPT Act, was a determination within the RPT Act's machinery. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) brushed aside this order without examination and without reasons. The Supreme Court judgment in New Noble Educational Society was distinguished as it dealt with cases where the applicability of the State law was not in dispute. However, the Tribunal also noted that the issues of the temple's objects and the genuineness of its activities, as required by section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) and relevant to section 13(1)(a), had not been examined by the CIT(E). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the application to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision, directing the CIT(E) to consider all aspects, including the 1984 order and the nature of the temple's objects and activities.
The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and the materials on record, including the application filed before the RPT authorities, decided to set aside the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) in the interest of justice. The Tribunal directed that the assessee trust be given one more opportunity of hearing. The CIT(E) is to pass orders in accordance with the provisions of law after considering all the necessary details. The ratio decidendi is that in the interest of justice, an assessee should be given an opportunity to rectify procedural deficiencies, especially when the application for a prerequisite registration (like under the RPT Act) has been filed. The operative direction is to set aside the orders and remand the matter for fresh consideration with an opportunity for a hearing. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the payment of Rs. 68,82,420/- to the foreign company for construction material used in India for building construction by the assessee trust does not constitute an application of income outside India under Section 11(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had indeed conducted an enquiry by issuing a show cause notice under section 142(1) and was satisfied with the assessee's reply that the expenditure was for import of construction material used for charitable purposes in India. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) could not invoke Section 263 merely because he disagreed with the AO's plausible view. Citing various ITAT and High Court decisions, including Ohio University Christ College and Advertising Standards Council of India, the Tribunal reiterated that foreign remittances for activities carried out in India do not amount to application of income outside India. The Delhi High Court case relied upon by the revenue was distinguished as it involved expenditure on activities held outside India. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The impugned order of the CIT(E) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect involved, which was below the monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 and Circular No. 05/2024 dated 15.03.2024. The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was Rs.10,28,907/-, which is below the prescribed limit of Rs.60 lakhs for appeals to the ITAT. The Revenue did not dispute that the case did not fall under any exceptions provided in the circulars. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. As the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, the Assessee's Cross Objection, which relied on the same circular for dismissal of the Revenue's appeal, became infructuous and was also dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and the Assessee's Cross Objection. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without adjudicating on merits, as the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme settlement did not cover the penalty orders. The matters were remanded for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without adjudicating on merits, as the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme settlement did not cover the penalty orders. The matters were remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the six-year period prescribed by the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b). Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without adjudicating on merits, as the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme settlement did not cover the penalty orders. The matters were remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to produce the relevant records for verification and examination.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had participated in the proceedings to some extent and had provided some documents. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the assessee's reply and relevant documents.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to represent its case properly before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond six years from the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's petition for condonation of delay. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without adjudicating on merits, as the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme settlement did not cover the penalty orders. The matters were remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's petition for condonation of delay. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's petition for condonation of delay. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's petition for condonation of delay. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to represent its case properly before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to represent its case properly before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to represent its case properly before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to represent its case properly before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to represent its case properly before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to represent its case properly before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have verified the registration number provided by the assessee before rejecting the application. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to establish their prior registration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have allowed the assessee to rectify the application and consider it on merits, rather than rejecting it on technical grounds. The matter was therefore remanded back to the CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that if the assessee linked PAN with Aadhaar on or before the specified due date as per CBDT circulars, the benefit should be extended. The AO was directed to verify the claim regarding PAN-Aadhaar linking and declarations under Section 194C(6).
The Tribunal held that the rejection of applications on technical grounds without considering them on merits was incorrect. The CIT(E) should have allowed the assessee to rectify the applications.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of applications on technical grounds without considering them on merits was incorrect. The CIT(E) should have allowed the assessee to rectify the applications.
The Tribunal held that the facts and circumstances of the current assessment years were identical to the earlier years where the ITAT had deleted the royalty adjustment. Therefore, the Revenue ought to have followed the rule of consistency and not made any adjustment.
The Tribunal held that the addition of unexplained fixed deposits requires examination with supporting evidence. It granted the assessee one more opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was not condonable due to vague reasons and the assessee's apparent negligence in waiting for the outcome of lower proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that the facts and circumstances of the current assessment years were identical to the earlier years where the ITAT had deleted the royalty adjustment. Therefore, the Revenue ought to have followed the rule of consistency and not made any adjustment.
The Tribunal held that the facts and circumstances of the current assessment years were identical to the earlier years where the ITAT had deleted the royalty adjustment. Therefore, the Revenue ought to have followed the rule of consistency and not made any adjustment.
The Tribunal held that the opening cash balance and cash sales supported by confirmations and corroborative evidence are explained. However, the remaining cash sales were not supported by satisfactory evidence and were sustained as an addition.
The Tribunal considered the various grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue, focusing on whether the JDA cum GPA constituted a 'transfer' for capital gains tax purposes in the year of agreement execution. The Revenue argued for taxation based on the agreement date, citing various High Court and ITAT decisions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to file a revised return to withdraw the income surrendered in the original return, as there was no basis for such surrender. The additions made by the lower authorities were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to file a revised return to withdraw the income surrendered in the original return, as there was no basis for such surrender. The additions made by the lower authorities were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have referred the matter to the DVO for determining the fair market value of the property when the assessee raised objections. The addition made without such reference is not justified.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to justify the rejection of books of accounts and the estimation of profit. It also directed that interest on fixed deposits, used for securing bank guarantees, should be treated as business income.
The Tribunal considered the various grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue, focusing on whether the JDA cum GPA constituted a 'transfer' for capital gains tax purposes in the year of agreement execution. The Revenue argued for taxation based on the agreement date, citing various High Court and ITAT decisions.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was barred by limitation under Section 153(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the assessee was not an 'eligible assessee' for the purpose of Section 144C. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal found no basis for the Assessing Officer's estimation of construction costs and progress. It also noted that the assessee had explained the sources for purchasing a flat. However, the difference between sale consideration and fair market value for a property was correctly treated as income.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was not applicable as the property was purchased via an agreement prior to its insertion into the Act. The unregistered agreement, if acted upon, cannot be ignored.
The Tribunal held that the crucial condition for exemption under Section 11(2) is the filing of Form 10 within the due date, explaining the purpose of accumulation. A resolution passed after the financial year-end, but before the due date for filing Form 10, does not invalidate the claim.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the requisite satisfaction in the assessment order before initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271D. Consequently, the penalty order was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not a commercial entity and the 1% fee charged is for establishment and maintenance, backed by government orders, and does not burden the beneficiaries. Therefore, the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the renewal and cancelling the registration.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the grounds on merits. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.